Search This Blog

When ‘Preaching’ is No Longer ‘Christian’: A Study of Paul’s Opposition to Oratory in His Day—and Our's

Paul faced a major challenge in his missionary
proclamation: he needed to distinguish himself from other public speakers of
his day inbothwhat he proclaimedandhow he presented the Gospel.
Like them, Paul showed up at a new city and needed to find a hearing from
people he did not personally know. Yet that is about as much as Paul
would have wanted to acknowledge he had in common with the Greek or Roman
orators of his day. To be sure, some public orators, like Dio Chrysostom
(c. AD 40-c. 115), also wanted to distinguish themselves from popular orators
for similar reasons to Paul. Paul was not unfamiliar with the rhetorical
methods of his day and could show himself an able writer and speaker.
Yet, for reasons of both a different content to his message and a concern for
truth rather than persuasive methods of delivery, Paul was no orator. He
found the conventions of his day antithetical to the Gospel itself.

This essay seeks to show how Paul distinguished himself
from orators of antiquity. He often had to challenge those who taught a false
Gospel, but here the focus is on a false median for the Gospel—the conventions
of Greek and Roman oratory. Bruce Winter has offered a particularly
helpful description of ancient orators in regard to their entrance into a city,
their public speaking, and the results or rewards they hoped to gain from their
speeches.[1] The following discussion builds from
his study, which will prove useful to any wishing to pursue this further.
Some further comments and quotes are given from ancient sources, as well as
full quotations from Paul on this subject matter.

The essay also seeks to raise the challenge such a study
poses to modern day preachers, evangelists, and Christian speakers, as well as
to audiences. As in the case of Paul, the orthodox Church regularly has
to challenge a false Gospel from teachers who distort the truth. Yet the
application of this essay is more in regard to a false mode of speech and
ministry that has similarities to Graeco-Roman oratory. While we might
first think of modern day politicians as the foil for Paul’s words in our day,
many contemporary speakers in the Church need to hear Paul afresh. While
only a few comments are made here on how Paul’s words apply to our day, the
study of Paul in his context offers rich fodder for further thought about
contemporary Christian ministry.

I. The
Entry (eisodos) of the orator into a city

Paul gives particular attention to the difference between
his ministry and Greek orators in 1 Thessalonians. He had only been in
the city a short while, and this could be mistaken for the self-serving motives
of such orators. He mentions his ‘entry’ (eisodos), although the
ESV and the NRSV both obscure this by translating the Greek term as ‘reception’
and ‘welcome,’ respectively. But Paul actually says, ‘For they reported
about us what sort ofentrywe had to you, and how you turned to
God from idols to serve the living and true God…’ (1 Th. 1.9).[2] According to Winter, the Greek
orators entered a city with great fanfare, expecting an enthusiastic (zēlos)welcome and honour (philotimia)
befitting a great orator. Paul, on the other hand, entered the city with
no advance reputation or staged welcome. In fact, in 2 Corinthians, he
and his mission associates need no letters of recommendation, as some do.
Instead, the Corinthians are their letter of recommendation, written on their
hearts, known and read by all (2 Cor. 3.1-2).

II.
The Initial Speech

The Greek orators offered an initial speech that helped
whet the appetite of the audience for more. Upon entry, the visiting
orators would make arrangements for a public place so that they could deliver
an exemplary speech. This place might be a lecture hall, the precincts of
a temple, or a theatre and, as Winter notes, invitations would then be sent out
for the initial speech.

In Paul’s case, however, his entry involved connecting with
the local synagogue,as was
his custom(Acts 17.1-2), and
this created an entirely different dynamic. His audience was fellow Jews
and any God-fearing Gentiles attached to the synagogue. He did not need
an initial speech but simply fit into the expected interaction around interpreting
the Scriptures. As Winter explains, the Greek orators’ initial speech[3]involved
some introductions, explaining their own renown or praising[4]the city and its citizens. The
orator then invited the audience to nominate topics for a speech. He
would either offer an impromptu speech or set a plan for a later
delivery. Either way, the speech ought to be original rather than
something that had been delivered before. Paul, on the other hand, gladly
declares that he had a single message: ‘For I decided to know nothing among you
except Jesus Christ and him crucified’ (1 Corinthians 2.2; this and subsequent
translations are from the ESV). This was a piece of Good News that he
delivered over and over again from city to city.

III. The Speech

‘Rhetoric’ is defined as the ‘art of persuasion.’
Greeks (e.g., Aristotle) and Romans (e.g., Cicero, Quintilian) produced
detailed rhetorical handbooks to teach this fundamental skill in all its
forms. It was an essential skill for social success in antiquity.
It was needed in the courts (judicial speech), in the public assemblies
(deliberative speech), and on public occasions (epideictic speech). Thus,
Greek and Roman audiences had learned to listen to public speakers employ their
craft, and they could be rather critical of persons who lacked the skills
taught in the rhetorical handbooks and displayed by the great orators of the
day. With the focus onrhetoric,there was, inevitably, an uneasy
tension between thepersuasivenessof speech and thetruthof a matter.

Paul’s synagogue audiences, on the other hand, wanted to
hear an interpretation of the Scriptures, not a rhetorical flourish, an
ornamented speech (or sermon) that would amaze the audience. His message
was not a piece of reasoningper
sebut a reasoningfroma sacred text—an interpretation of
a community’s authoritative text. He ‘reasoned with them [the
Thessalonian Jews] from the Scriptures’ (Acts 17.2). Paul would explain
and prove from Scripture (the Old Testament) that ‘it was necessary for the
Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead,’ and that Jesus was the Christ
(Acts 17.3). The synagogue was not interested in Greek or Roman styled
speeches—frankly, ‘preaching’—but wanted to hear people interpret the Word of
God. This is why, no doubt, the activities of the church were never
described in terms of ‘preaching’—English translations of Scripture that use
the word ‘preaching’ would probably do better with the word ‘proclamation,’
since the meaning in those contexts is a setting forth of the
Gospel—evangelistic proclamation—not what we have come to expect from the
pulpit on a Sunday morning in our form of the regular ‘church service.’
Acts 2.42 summarizes the activities of the Jerusalem church as devotion to ‘the
apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the
prayers.’ The ‘gifts’ given
to the church do not include preachers, but they do include teachers (1
Corinthians 12.28-29; Romans 12.6-8; Ephesians 4.11). The rhetorical
expectations for the church that Paul encouraged were those of the synagogue,
not the expectations of a Graeco-Roman audience. Not speeches but
Biblical interpretation in light of the coming of Jesus Christ was the
appropriate focus in the church—along with prophecy, utterances of Spirit-inspired
wisdom and knowledge, discernment of spirits, and tongues and their
interpretation; that is, not preaching.

This is not to say that we should do away with the sermon
as an un-Biblical practice. It is to say that we are warned of the
dangers of sermons being crafted as speeches that appeal to an audience through
their rhetorical strengths over their strengths in accurate interpretation of
God’s Word. Audiences have to be taught the right expectations. If
one regularly leaves a church service asking others, ‘Did you like the sermon?’
instead of ‘Did you understand the Biblical interpretation?’, the audience has
been poorly trained in the purpose of speech in the church service. The
more a sermon tries to hit home an idea through rhetoric rather than demonstrate
an interpretation, the further it moves away from the practice that Paul
encouraged in his churches. The more the contemporary ‘sermon’ leans
towards rhetoric—in gripping illustrations, in opinions on topics, in some ‘big
idea’ encapsulated in a brilliant story rather than proven from the Biblical
text—the more it departs from theteachingmode of communication of the
synagogue—and of Paul. In Berea, Jews listened to Paul’s teaching the
about Jesus Christ in the synagogueand
daily examined the Scripturesto
see if these things were possibly so (Acts 17.11). Since people would not
have had their own collection of Biblical scrolls at home, this searching of
the Scriptures would have taken place together at the synagogue.

Paul’s fitting into the rhythm of synagogue life,
therefore, meant not only that he did not have to find a time and a place for a
public speech, send out invitations, and try to assemble a crowd as Greek and
Roman orators. It meant that his rhetoric would not be a speech trying to
persuade an audience through rhetoric but a teaching in the sense of Jewish
study of the Scriptures. Inasmuch as his mode of delivery was teaching,
it was dialogical. We see this in what Luke says about Paul’s ministry in
Athens in his mode of communication among both Jews in the synagogue and
Gentiles in the marketplace:

Acts 17:17-18So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the
devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be
there. 18Some of the Epicurean and Stoic
philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, "What does this
babbler wish to say?" Others said, "He seems to be a preacher [katangelous,proclaimer] of foreign
divinities"- because he was preaching [euēngelizeto,proclaimed the good news of] Jesus
and the resurrection.

This text adds to what has been said to this point that
Paul’s proclamation was also to a non-Jewish audience in the marketplace.
Here, the nature of his discourse was more that of the Greek and Roman
philosophers, wherereasoningrather thanrhetoricwas expected. Paul would
certainly have been challenged to present the Gospelwithoutan appeal to Scripture. He
was challenged to demonstrate that the facts of the Gospel—Jesus’ death on a
cross and his resurrection from the dead—spoke to the philosophical issues of
the day. Given the religious world of antiquity, this further meant that
philosophy was not separated from religion but intertwined with it. The
mode of discourse was still dialogical; it was evaluated on the basis of reason
rather than persuasion (rhetoric), even if the means of proof had to shift from
proof from the Scriptures before a Biblically literate audience in the
synagogue to proof from facts and their implications before a philosophically
engaged audience in the marketplace.

IV. Rewards

Bruce Winter also considers the nature of Greek oratory in
terms of the rewards that the orators expected. The greatest reward for
an orator might be to establish a school in the city—to receive paying
pupils. He might move on to another city once a crop of students had been
educated, but it would suit him well to be received by the city to train its
youth for public oratory. An orator might also be employed by the city to
represent it in some ambassadorial role. More modestly, an orator might
hope to be engaged to represent a citizen in court.

V. Criticism of Ancient Orators

Some of the criticism of ancient orators in Greek and Roman
authors overlaps with Paul’s concerns about oratory. Apparently, some
persons in early Christian circles adopted the methods of Greek and Roman
orators, no doubt with the success that might be expected in a context that so
highly prized such oratory. Paul’s 1 Thessalonians and both of his
surviving letters to the Corinthians, in particular, distance him from these
orators. His brief time in Thessalonica could be interpreted as a
travelling orator’s exploitation of an audience in a city rather than in terms
of a persecuted apostle run out of town due to the offence of the Gospel.
In Corinth, there was a particularly susceptible citizenship to the sophists’
oratory and the factions that they produced:

The time of the bi-annual Isthmian games
at Corinth was ‘when one could hear crowds of wretched sophists around
Poseidon’s temple shouting and reviling one another, and their disciples, as
they were called, fighting with one another (Dio Chrysostom,Oracle8.9).

Some in the early Corinthian congregation gave in to this
sort of partisanship. In response, Paul says,

1 Corinthians 1:10-12I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions
among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11For it has been reported to me by
Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12What I mean is that each one of you
says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I
follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."

In 1 Thessalonians and 1 and 2 Corinthians in particular,
but also in other letters of Paul, we catch his critique of such oratory.
Paul’s concerns compare to criticisms offered by persons such as Plato, Dio
Chrysostom, and Philo. Orators were criticized for wanting to display
their talents—over against addressing serious issues in serious ways:

My purpose is … neither to elate you nor
to range myself beside those who habitually sing such strains, whether orators
or poets. For they are clever persons, mighty sophists, wonder-workers,
but I am quite ordinary and prosaic in my utterance, though not ordinary in my
theme. For though the words I speak are not great in themselves, they
treat of topics of the greatest possible importance (Dio Chrysostom,Oracle32.39).

Plato refers to a sophist as an entertainer or juggler (Sophist235A, B).

Orators were also criticized for wanting money from their
audiences.[5] Philo speaks of sophists selling
doctrines and reasoning, just like any other commodity (Philo,MosesII.212). They were thought of as
persons’ whose primary motivation was praise from their audiences:

Gentlemen, I have come before you not
to display my talents as a speaker nor because I want money from you, or
expect your praise (Dio Chrysostom, Oracle35.1).[6]

As people-pleasers, sophists inevitably formed their
speeches in accordance with what audiences wanted to hear.

The sophists also can't help adopting the
thought of their listeners, saying and thinking such things as fit the nature
of those listeners, whatever it happens to be…. (Dio Chrysostom,Oracle35.8).

Plato says that sophistry or flattery aims at what is
pleasant instead of what is best (Gorgias465a;Agr.1.164). Seeking public
honour could involve more than public applause. Honour could involve
imperial and civic recognition, immortalization with a statue, or a publically
displayed inscription.[7]

An emphasis on rhetoric and the motivation to receive
public praise inevitably also entailed such persons being less interested in
the truth. They were accused of putting forward as fact what was not
proven but merely sounded plausible to the audience. They might even
intentionally put forward falsehoods to accomplish their purposes. Philo says:

But being clothed in the
much-variegated web of political affairs, with which the smallest possible
portion of truth is mixed up; and also many and large portions of plausible,
probable, and likely falsehoods, from which all the sophists of Egypt, and all
the augurs, and ventriloquists, and sorcerers spring; men skilful in juggling,
and in incantations, and in tricks of all kinds, from whose treacherous arts it
is very difficult to escape’ (On Dreams1.220).[8]

Orators played with the truth through their use of clever
rather than ordinary speech:

For it is my nature to talk quite simply
and unaffectedly and in a manner in no wise better than that of any ordinary
person; whereas you are devoted to oratory to a degree that is remarkable,
I may even say excessive, and you tolerate as speakers only those who are
very clever (Dio Chrysostom,Oracle35.1).[9]

The deceptive speech of such orators could either have to
do with hypocrisy, the orators’ not living according to the virtues they
taught, or with deceiving their audiences by means of their rhetorical powers.[10] As Demosthenes says,

Can we point out a more enormous instance
of iniquity in any speaker than this inconsistency between his words and
actions?’ (On the Crown).

Paul's Opposition to Oratory

In contrast to these Greek orators, whose reputation had
developed over hundreds of years by Paul’s day, Paul sought to address the
truth. Instead of public honours, he gladly suffered persecution as a
testimony to his motives as well as participation in the sufferings of
Christ. Thus he could not be accused of gaining from deception, from
putting forward false or impure teaching. The opposition he encountered
absolved him of any charge of flattery. His working to support his
ministry undercut any charge of greed. He did not relate to an audience
as a salesman but to a family community as a mother caring for her
children. All this Paul states in 1 Thessalonians,

1 Thessalonians 2:2-13But though we had already suffered and been shamefully
treated at Philippi, as you know, we had boldness in our God to declare to you
the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict. 3For our appeal does not spring from
error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, 4but just as we have been approved by
God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to
please God who tests our hearts. 5For we never came with words of
flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed- God is witness. 6Nor did we seek glory from people,
whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles
of Christ. 7But we were gentle among you, like a
nursing mother taking care of her own children. 8So, being affectionately desirous of
you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our
own selves, because you had become very dear to us. 9For you remember, brothers, our labor
and toil: we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you,
while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God. 10You are witnesses, and God also, how
holy and righteous and blameless was our conduct toward you believers. 11For you know how, like a father with
his children, 12we exhorted each one of you and
encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you
into his own kingdom and glory. 13And we also thank God constantly for
this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you
accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God,
which is at work in you believers.

Paul’s concern to distinguish himself from rhetorical
persuasion in order to proclaim truth and truth alone is also something that he
needs to state to the Corinthians. His power is through spiritual truth,
not human wisdom or rhetoric. He says,

1 Corinthians 2:1-16And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come
proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2For I decided to know nothing among
you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3And I was with you in weakness and in
fear and much trembling, 4and my speech and my message were not
in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of
power, 5that your faith might not rest in the
wisdom of men but in the power of God…. 12Now we have received not the spirit of
the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things
freely given us by God. 13And we impart this in words not taught
by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to
those who are spiritual. 14The natural person does not accept the
things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to
understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual person judges all
things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16"For who has understood the mind
of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Unlike other orators, Paul arrives with no letters of
recommendation to establish his credentials. His commission is from God,
his authority Christ’s. His ‘recommendation’ is in the changed hearts of
his audience. He rejects means of persuasion—the rhetoric and antics of
orators—so that the only basis of persuasion is the truth of the Gospel found
in God’s Word:

2 Corinthians 2:17 - 3:2, 4.2For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but
as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in
Christ. 3:1Are we beginning to commend ourselves
again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from
you? 2You yourselves are our letter of
recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all….4:2But we have renounced disgraceful,
underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word,
but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's
conscience in the sight of God.

The challenge Paul faced was not only from non-Christian
orators but also from Christians who had adopted the means and methods of Greek
oratory. He notes that ‘some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry,
but others from good will’ (Philippians 1.15). Chapters 10-12 of 2
Corinthians particularly address this problem of what today might be called
‘seeker sensitive’ oratory. The following lengthy quotations show Paul’s
radical departure from accepted methods of oratory. What is clear in
Paul’s defense of a ‘Christian oratory’ is that thecontent of the Gospel—Jesus Christ
and him crucified—also establishes themethodof oratory and ministry.

2 Corinthians 10:10-18For they say, "His letters are weighty and strong, but
his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account." 11Let such a person understand that what
we say by letter when absent, we do when present. 12Not that we dare to classify or
compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves. But when
they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another,
they are without understanding. 13But we will not boast beyond limits,
but will boast only with regard to the area of influence God assigned to us, to
reach even to you. 14For we are not overextending
ourselves, as though we did not reach you. We were the first to come all the
way to you with the gospel of Christ. 15We do not boast beyond limit in the
labors of others. But our hope is that as your faith increases, our area of
influence among you may be greatly enlarged, 16so that we may preach the gospel in
lands beyond you, without boasting of work already done in another's area of
influence. 17"Let the one who boasts, boast in
the Lord." 18For it is not the one who commends
himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends.

2 Corinthians 11:5 - 12:1I consider that I am not in the least
inferior to these super-apostles. 6Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I
am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in
all things. 7Or did I commit a sin in humbling
myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God's gospel to you
free of charge? 8I robbed other churches by accepting
support from them in order to serve you. 9And when I was with you and was in
need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia
supplied my need. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any
way. 10As the truth of Christ is in me, this
boasting of mine will not be silenced in the regions of Achaia. 11And why? Because I do not love you?
God knows I do! 12And what I do I will continue to do,
in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their
boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13For such men are false apostles,
deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for even Satan
disguises himself as an angel of light. 15So it is no surprise if his servants,
also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will
correspond to their deeds. 16I repeat, let no one think me foolish.
But even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a
little. 17What I am saying with this boastful
confidence, I say not with the Lord's authority but as a fool. 18Since many boast according to the
flesh, I too will boast. 19For you gladly bear with fools, being
wise yourselves! 20For you bear it if someone makes
slaves of you, or devours you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or
strikes you in the face. 21To my shame, I must say, we were too
weak for that! But whatever anyone else dares to boast of- I am speaking as a
fool- I also dare to boast of that. 22Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they
Israelites? So am I. Are they offspring of Abraham? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ? I am a
better one- I am talking like a madman- with far greater labors, far more
imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. 24Five times I received at the hands of
the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25Three times I was beaten with rods.
Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was
adrift at sea; 26on frequent journeys, in danger from
rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles,
danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false
brothers; 27in toil and hardship, through many a
sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and
exposure. 28And,
apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for
all the churches. 29Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is
made to fall, and I am not indignant? 30If I must boast, I will boast of the
things that show my weakness. 31The God and Father of the Lord Jesus,
he who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 32At Damascus, the governor under King
Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me, 33but I was let down in a basket through
a window in the wall and escaped his hands. ESV2 Corinthians 12:1I must go on boasting. Though there is
nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the
Lord….12The signs of a true apostle were
performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty
works….

2 Corinthians 13:3-4since you seek proof that Christ is speaking in me. He is
not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you. 4For he was crucified in weakness, but
lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but in dealing with you
we will live with him by the power of God….8For we cannot do anything against the
truth, but only for the truth. 9For we are glad when we are weak and
you are strong. Your restoration is what we pray for. 10For this reason I write these things
while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my
use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for
tearing down.

Conclusion

This study is offered for two reasons. First, a study of
Paul’s proclamation in the context of ancient Greek oratory (beginning with an
important essay by Bruce Winter) helps illuminate several passages in his
letters, especially in 1 Thessalonians and 1 and 2 Corinthians. What
stands out is that Paul was deeply concerned to distinguish his ministry from
these orators, who were part of a tradition stretching back several hundred
years in Greek and Roman society. To proclaim the Gospel required not
only a different message to the Gentile audience but also a different means of
proclamation. Paul saw that themeansof proclamation had to conform to
thecontentof the proclamation—the Gospel of
Jesus Christ. Paul embodied the message he proclaimed. Moreover, Christianity, following the practice of the synagogue, focussed speaking on interpretation of God's Word, not oratory. Classics
scholar George Kennedy, assessing Christian speaking up to about AD 200, came
to a similar conclusion:[11]

The primary function of the Christian orator, in contrast [to
classical orators], was to interpret and bring into practice the holy
word. Homiletic preaching
was basically ‘a projection of the eloquence of Scripture’ and not an
achievement of the eloquence of the preacher.

Second, such a study is offered because of its relevance
today. The problem we face is not only of certain flashy television
evangelists or mega-church orators (erroneously called ‘pastors’) seeking
public praise and honour, getting rich off of gullible audiences, and building
their own little independent empire. The problem is also where successful
oratory rather than the Gospel grows the congregation, not only creating a
shallow discipleship but also a mistaken ecclesiology. Churches are first
and foremost conceived of in the New Testament as God’s holy people (a living
temple of God filled with the Holy Spirit, Ephesians 2.19-22). The
primary image for the church is that of a family, for the Gospel knits together
a close community of persons contributing their various gifts to upbuilding (1
Corinthians 12) or maturing (Ephesians 4.11-13) the people. Large crowds
gathered to hear a successful speaker can hardly consider themselves a church,
let alone when the message of the Gospel and the nature of worship is
‘sanitized’ from too Christian a focus so that ‘seekers’ are comfortable during
the performance. The more that speaking (preaching) in the church is
confused with oratory rather than interpretation of Scripture, the more
‘preaching’ actually contributes to Biblical illiteracy in the church. In
light of increasing Biblical illiteracy in the western Church, whether liberal
or evangelical (and this for various reasons), the more it is important to
recover the early church’s focus oninterpretation
of the Scriptures—teaching the Word—as the concern during Christian
assembly, notpreachingin the sense of persuasive oratory.

[7]B. Winter writes (pp. 61-62): ‘Polemo
received imperial honours, and Nicetes from the Neronean era was awarded civic
honours [Philostratus,Lives
of Sophists, #532-3]. Favorinus had been cast in bronze by the Corinthian
citizens, in front of the library in the forum, and public inscriptions in that
Roman colony also recorded the names of its orators who were honoured for
posterity [Or. 37.20, J.H. Kent, Corinth: Inscriptions 1926-1950; Corinth:
Results 8.3 (Princeton, American School of Archaeology in Athens 1966) nos.
226, 264, 268-9.].

[10]B. Winter, p. 63. Cf. Philo, inWho is Heir of Divine Things(Her.1.302), speaks of persons who misuse
speech being ‘flatterers, imposters, devisers of plausible sophistries, men who
rather cultivate the skill to delude and to cheat, and who have no care to
speak truly, and these men study indistinctness.’

[11] George A. Kennedy, Classical
Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern
Times (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 1980), p.
137. His quote is from John S. Chamberlin, Increase and
Multiply: Arts of Discourse Procedure in the Preaching of Donne (Chapel
Hill: Univ. of North Carolina, 1976), p. 28.